Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets?
IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sat, 14 May 2005 11:27 Go to next message
Raindancer is currently offline Raindancer

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 218
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finger Lakes NY, USA

I need some help here. I have taken all the planets I can in a game without attacking other players... I am building an 'orgy' so I will have pop to spare soon.

I know red planets can be colonized, and that freighters in orbit can keep adding pop to offset the pop that dies. How much of the pop is effective on a red planet? Is there a cap? Basically I am looking to determine if I can get more resources from pop and factories, and maybe some minerals as well.

If the red planet idea does not work, I could over pop my planets (as described in another post here).

Opinions about which is best?

Thanks for any help.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sat, 14 May 2005 20:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wreck is currently offline Wreck

 
Crewman 3rd Class

Messages: 4
Registered: April 2005
Location: Maryland
Red planets have a maxpop of 5% of a 100% world. So you can put 55000 on the typical red (assuming OBRM) and get full productivity, including running mines and factories. You can also overpop red worlds and get the normal pop resources for overpopping.

This is generally the best use for pop. Any PRT, not just IS, can benefit from red planet colonization. IS are a bit better in that they can grow pop to replace red-planet losses without having to lose productivity on their green worlds.

As for whether to overpop normal worlds or do red planets - reds are a much better deal. Overpop on a normal world will quickly get to 1.5% losses, or 3.0%, etc.

The only real problem with red planets is that there aren't enough, assuming a reasonably viable race design. A single 100% planet can grow enough pop to keep ~20-30 reds topped off. But nobody plays races with ~1/20 greens after terraforming.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sat, 14 May 2005 21:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Braindead is currently offline Braindead

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 186
Registered: April 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
As Wreck said, you can overpopulate red planets and the same rules that apply to greens will apply here. But it sounds like it's time for you to find an enemy and take a few planets from them. If you do the math, you'll realize that a new unpopulated green (let's say 80%) is a much better place for your colonists than an overpopulated uninhabitable planet.

BD
Pirate

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sun, 15 May 2005 05:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1180
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Raindancer wrote on Sat, 14 May 2005 17:27

How much of the pop is effective on a red planet? Is there a cap?
Cap for reds for running installations is 5% of your HW. You can increase the pop to 15% to get double the resources from them (above 100% pop produces only 50% resources up to 300% capacity) and get mostly 4.5% deaths per turn for being over capacity. If you increase pop on the green planet deaths by overcrowding are much more severe, so it is usually better to take greens from your neighbours with the orgy Twisted Evil , than to overpop yours.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Wed, 18 May 2005 11:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert is currently offline Robert

 
Ensign

Messages: 361
Registered: November 2002
Location: Dortmund, Germany
I would say reds first!
One thing is that you can still hold the other worlds and get growth on them, more important is that you will have much more minerals from the additional reds.

I guess thats the point: reds give you more mins, and you are less vulnerable to attacks. Someone packets your overpop world - ouch - someone drops your red - who cares...

Assuming lots of pop you get more resources from an overpopped green - but I would say reds first in any non theoretical situation... sometimes math does not give the best answer Very Happy

And something the others have said:
If you have an orgy and not attacked anyone yet, you must have had quite a boring game. It is really time to attack someone!
Twisted Evil

Robert



2b v !2b -> ?

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Thu, 26 May 2005 20:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ForceUser is currently offline ForceUser

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004
Location: South Africa
Ah, but the thing with practically ANY question in stars! is this, It's all theoretical till it grinds it out in a real game Wink

It's true that, theoretically, it's be better to take more greens (However possible) but the most important is to maximise resourse/mins with minimum effort. A war is a rather big effort. Not so much for an IS in relation to an AR but still... By doing just 3 or so turns' worth of MM (Most likely boring turns coz you're not at war Wink ) you can permanently, barring any packets/warfleets, increase your total mining and resource output.

To do this, overpoping Reds is rather easy. You'll need a calculator and a formula to calculate how many people a red can hold for your race, how fast they die, how much pop an overpoped red takes, how fast they die when overpoped, and lastly, how many pop you'll need in transport above the world too replace the killed pop on the planet automatically.

Luckely, you only have to calculate this once. You'll just have to add the max pop and primary growth rate to a fromula.

And viola, you have a few extra resources and mins from seemingly useless Reds Smile

*now for someone to do the hard work, actually making the freaken formula*

ok, made A formulae all on me own Smile

Here's the death toll on an overpoped red red

((MaxHWPop*0.05)*3)/((Red%/10)+8%)

That'd mean, for a OBRM IS Race, overpopping a -25% Red:

((1 100 000 * 0.05) * 3) / ((25/10)+8)
= 165 000/10.5
= 15 700 Deaths

This means you need 165 000 - 15 700 = 149 300 pop on surface and overflow of about 15 700.

Ok, now for someone who actually passed maths to come and show me my gaping flaws in my simple equasion Smile

ForceUser
...



[Updated on: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:23]




"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser

Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Thu, 26 May 2005 23:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Braindead is currently offline Braindead

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 186
Registered: April 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
ForceUser wrote on Thu, 26 May 2005 17:44

Ok, now for someone who actually passed maths to come and show me my gaping flaws in my simple equasion Smile


A curious neighbour with a fleet of battleships and b52's noticing how you colonize every planet in sight, will have no problem finding all the flaws in the equasion.

Also, how do you count the opportunity cost? All the time and resources spent on colonizing those reds could've been used to produce a few extra ships. And what about the screaming people who have to die on the bloody planet because of the lack of oxygen? They would've been much happier reproducing aboard your ships and then taking a juicy green planet from your curious neighbour significantly reducing your need in building extra bombers.

Braindead



Mess with the best, die like the rest!

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Fri, 27 May 2005 04:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ForceUser is currently offline ForceUser

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004
Location: South Africa
usually, that'd be all true, but as I said, it's all theoretical till it get's put into a real game. In some situations, you're blocked by aggressive and races and you can't get out. so you have to utilise every planet you got for an edge.

calculating the cost vs payoff shouldn't be too hard, to get overflow of 15 700 pop, you just need 157 000 pop in the air (With 20% growth). That's just 1 Sup frieghter. In return you get a few more resourses/mins/scanning and would be cool if you don't have pens.

Also, what about all those reds tucked away behind you/inside your terretory if you're in a corner? You could give them to a close ally/Remotemine them but such option arn't always available for every red.

This I guess is just for those MM freaks who love to get everything outa each and every world Smile

ForceUser



"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser

Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Fri, 27 May 2005 05:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazda is currently offline mazda

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK
ForceUser wrote on Fri, 27 May 2005 01:44

Here's the death toll on an overpoped red red

((MaxHWPop*0.05)*3)/((Red%/10)+8%)

Ok, now for someone who actually passed maths to come and show me my gaping flaws in my simple equasion Smile

Well the first thing I notice is that the more Red a planet is, the less deaths there are. Interesting result.
So presumably you'll want an unfriendly CA or PP to unterraform your reds for you in order to save your pop.


Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Fri, 27 May 2005 06:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ForceUser is currently offline ForceUser

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004
Location: South Africa
Hmm.. Let see..

It should be ((MaxHWPop*0.05)*3) * (((Red%/10)+8)/100)

so Thats ((1 100 000*0.05)*3)*(((25/10)+8)/100)
= 17 300 deaths

Another one ((1 100 000*0.05)*3)*(((12/10)+8)/100)
= 15 100 deaths

There we go Smile


[Updated on: Fri, 27 May 2005 06:44]




"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser

Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Fri, 27 May 2005 06:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PricklyPea is currently offline PricklyPea

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005
is it worth calculating? just stick a super freighter over the planet and let the pop stabilise.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Fri, 27 May 2005 10:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Braindead wrote on Fri, 27 May 2005 06:22

All the time and resources spent on colonizing those reds could've been used to produce a few extra ships.
What resources? Rolling Eyes A red costs 1 santa maria + 1 freighter parked on orbit. Hard to do something meaningful with such small resources.
What time? Rolling Eyes Colonize and after that you may ignore that planet if you got no time.
In testbed my IS 1WW got 24k by 2450 in tiny packed thanks to such waste of "time and resources". Razz

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sat, 28 May 2005 22:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wreck is currently offline Wreck

 
Crewman 3rd Class

Messages: 4
Registered: April 2005
Location: Maryland
Tiny packed has 60 stars. If all of those but one are 1/20, your maximum resources would be roughly the same as 4 100% planets.
Thus, your "1WW", although narrow hab I am sure, wasn't actually just using one world. It must have had at least 2 greens, and probably 5 or 6 I would guess, if you were smart and took TT.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sun, 29 May 2005 04:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Wreck wrote on Sun, 29 May 2005 05:51

Thus, your "1WW", although narrow hab I am sure, wasn't actually just using one world.
With all reds i probably had ~19k. Since one was green and 2 were yellows so i got 24k. I think the RW prognose (1 in 171 habitable) is bit too pessimistic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Wed, 08 June 2005 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Raindancer is currently offline Raindancer

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 218
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finger Lakes NY, USA

Okay, I can add a little more detail now, with actual results.

First... the game I was in was small, with restricted habs, so greens were very limited. The number of players was small, and due to other factors, I was not in a position to attack anyone yet.

I colonized a bunch of reds in well protected space. I did not want to use a superfreighter to supply pop, as I wanted the pop in space to repopulate the planets to the right level, without using any more pop than necessary, and I did not have massive amounts of Bor free to completely fill the SFs the rest of the way. So in theory the planet population would be stable at 165K, without MM every turn.

And since I was trying to keep my number of designs small, I used small freighters (actually freighter chaff) to hold the pop over these planets.

The cost to build a red:
1 colonizer, (plus old MFs and LFs that I was scrapping anyway)
up to 11 freighter chaff.
150000 pop (grows to 165000 in transit)
pop for freighter chaff based on the planet death rate. (to arrive the turn after colonizetion)

The worst planet had a death rate of 4.5%. That percentage of 165K is 7425 deaths. So 75K pop, in 11 small freighters. The rest filled with Bor.

The addition of the red planets increased my resources by about 30%. It took a few years, but the minerals used were also returned and more (minerals not measured). A few programmed Super Freighters picked up the minerals and dumped them on the biggest greens, reducing MM.

The one minor problem was that the pop in the freighters would grow (and overflow to the planets) before the deaths on the planets, so the actual amount that died on the reds was a slightly higher amount than I had originally calculated.

The biggest real cost for me was up to 225K pop for each of these red planets. This had a serious impact on the growth rate of my orgies.

There was also one turn where I wanted to push to a specific tech level, so I overpopped my HW. I go the tech I wanted but was VERY surprised to lose 30000
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Mon, 13 June 2005 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ForceUser is currently offline ForceUser

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004
Location: South Africa
That's because there were 1 mill and not 100k/200k pop on the green (More actually since the deaths were calculated after the drop)

ForceUser



"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser

Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Mon, 13 June 2005 12:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LEit is currently offline LEit

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT
The death rate from overpop on green worlds is much higher then the death rate on red worlds. On a red world you lose between .1% and 4.5% (of the total pop). On a green world you lose up to 12% (of the total pop) 4% per 100% over capacity, to a max of 12% at 400% or higher capacity. If you're only over a little it's not a big loss, but if you go to 3x pop, green worlds kill 8% of the pop, more then any red world will.

This is why overpoping green worlds is really only for IS (and AR just after colonization to speed building a bigger base).

A 20% IS needs about 6mil pop at a 100% world to keep it at 300% pop.



- LEit

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Mon, 22 January 2007 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tgellan is currently offline tgellan

 
Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006
Location: Luxembourg
There is another slight advantage on colonizing red planets not mentioned here... The biggest benefit needs a bit of timing though.
The idea is, though it does cost a certain amount of res to build the colonizers, this is countered by the tec gain on colonized planets due to found artifacts. In my recent game, I started to colonize reds due to the simple fact that I wanted to advance faster in tec. I guess I was somewhere around 30-40 tecs and still used plain QJ-5 Santa Marias. The res for building a Santa Maria was something about 10-20% of the expected gains from artifacts, so if only each 5th planet gave me an artifact, I got my investment back. I don't know the probability for an artifact, but I felt it higher than 1/5. Well, the results seemed to prove that, as I actually advanced faster in research that way, as if I had done plain research. Thus giving me the colonies for "free".
Ok, this setup should only be used in secure areas, as the planets did only hold some 2500 colonists, and it decreased each year, else it's an invitation to any neighbour... But then the colonies didn't cost anything, you still have about 25 turns for follow up colonists.
If you don't refill those planets, you may still use those planets with your ally to actually exchange tec through invasion. The planets are already colonised, so just take advantage of it Very Happy

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

Quote:

They would've been much happier reproducing aboard your ships and then taking a juicy green planet from your curious neighbour


I wouldn't be so sure about this - something tells me that there would be an awful lot of pop in those freighters that wouldn't be looking forwards to the bloody 1.1 to 1 death rate on the invasion.

Populating reds does make sense - especially if you are keeping privateers. There are 2 reasons for setting up the red planets. One is, of course, the minerals that will be returned. The second is that they build up fairly quick to the max resource level and then, all those extra resources fall into research. I did this in a game where my max resources on a red planet was around 300. I chose the lower reds with high minerals first then worked onwards. A privateer in orbit supplied the exact pop growth per year on each planet usually with a 100 or 200 surplus. When all the mines were built, I did simply pick up minerals and I would check periodically to see if there was now a thousand or so pop that should be moved off with the minerals.

The research resources were excellent. With 20+ red planets producing, that was 6k resources per turn in research + left over from full greens.

Be sure to build the defenses on those reds. They are attractive for enemies to drop on. Having defenses built and with the IS defense bonus, the enemies that drop on them were hemorraging troops. Not only that, with ISB, each red planet eventually had a space dock capable of doing damage and a gate vastly improving mobility and minelaying.

Another item to remember, is that when those fringe reds are getting attacked, the enemy is losing ships trying to take them. If he does manage to take a planet, the resource loss is insignificant.

Ptolemy


[Updated on: Mon, 22 January 2007 15:12]





Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sun, 11 February 2007 11:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
velvetthroat57 is currently offline velvetthroat57

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005
Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 22 January 2007 15:10

I did this in a game where my max resources on a red planet was around 300.


A red is basically a 5% world. If you had 300 resources on a 5% world, that would mean 6000 resources on a 100% world??!

I am curious what your race looked like to do this. HP factory settings while keeping 1/1000 pop efficiency is my guess but paying for that is rough. You either have a lot of reds or really low pop growth.

Quote:

Be sure to build the defenses on those reds.


You can only build 10 defenses and if someone is pop-dropping an IS red with 165k on the ground without the aid of bombers, they are insane. You will kill 300k (nonWM) even without the defenses and nobody other than IS can afford that. If they brought bombers, then the defenses won't do much.

I do agree that taking reds is the way to go. The main advantage is denying planets to your neighbors. Later you can trade some possibly for greens in their space and in the meantime they provide resources for research as well as minerals at little cost to the IS.

CAL

{mod edit: fixed quote}


[Updated on: Mon, 12 February 2007 03:56] by Moderator


Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sun, 11 February 2007 18:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
velvetthroat57 wrote on Sun, 11 February 2007 18:35

A red is basically a 5% world. If you had 300 resources on a 5% world, that would mean 6000 resources on a 100% world??!


Probably the reds had say 275 resources. (it may be called "around 300") Wink
Race like IS
OBRM, NAS, RS
.21 to .86; -144 to -16; 75 to 95. (1 in 38) 19%
1000;15/9/20/[v];10/3/21
3 cheap technologies.
Santa maria a red, send full LF to orbit and in 15 years or so its 275 resources planet. Very Happy
At technology 10,10,10,?,?,3 it has about 1 in 8 planets habitable. At 40 planet territory it ceils at ~35k resources ... so QS on one hand and can well wait with military on other hand. Very Happy

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sun, 11 February 2007 20:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ptolemy is currently offline Ptolemy

 
Commander

Messages: 1008
Registered: September 2003
Location: Finland

And that is pretty much exactly what I did. Though, I think the hab range was a 1 in 5 close to 1 in 6. Kotk is correct - resources for reds were something like 275 - "around 300". Resources at 2450 were 31k if I remember correct though, I didn't use LF's to keep them populated, I used privateers. I had plenty enough built to do so. It also meant needing to keep less minerals in the ships to keep the pop at a 'just' negative growth of like 100 per year with the planet overpopulated by 200%. Every few years I'd take a run around the planets and adjust the pop back up to the full 200% overpop. With a few of the reds producing a slight surplus from the orbital pop, I had a couple privateers making rounds and picking up excessses.

The main enemy did indeed pop drop on several of the farther reds when they only had 65-100k on them - his pop losses were tremendous.

Ptolemy




Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.

Report message to a moderator

Re: IS pop -over pop planets, or build red planets? Sat, 15 November 2008 02:52 Go to previous message
Marduk is currently offline Marduk

 
Ensign

Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
I started wondering why so many people use a privateer for maintaining overpop on a red world. It seems to me (now, and I wonder why I hadn't thought of this when I was playing an IS) that red worlds make excellent breeders with SFs. The overflow population from space accumulates on the planet, even if it doesn't contribute to anything it also doesn't die off at any significant rate. Just send some SFs buzzing around to collect up the excess population periodically, or put up a shipyard and have the red build its own SFs. If you are willing to micromanage the system pop (so at to limit unproductive deaths) it will breed even faster. You could do the same thing with large freighters, and start it up earlier (it is certainly easier to part with a LF of pop earlier), though with somewhat reduced effect since the annual losses are higher relative to the LF production.

Once you get a couple of these started, they can provide all the pop you need for lots more red worlds with minimal investment from your 'real' planets. Put up an orbital capable of building your favorite Love Boat design at each red, toss a few dozen or so in each queue, come back every three or four years to do some merging and a little pop lifting and before long every red system has a full-fledged orgy over it. In a decade the planet has more pop than the fleet. You can pull out however many orgy fleets you want, add some more Love Boats to the queues and replace the space-borne breeding population from the planets. The low death rate on even the worst red means you've got plenty of time to replace the ships.

It doesn't cost much to start up, you are paying the same amount of minerals and resources for the same number of orgy ships, but you don't have to worry so much about MM and the minerals and resources are coming from worlds that can't produce much anyway. Think of it as saving the MM effort of shipping those minerals out. Whenever a red does build up a significant amount of minerals, build more freighters to carry them somewhe
...

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Early game tech race.
Next Topic: Uses for Fielded Kelarium?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 18 09:28:52 EST 2017